VIA Rail

[SFO-YYZ]

You also have to factor stuff like major events that affect travel, namely reading week when university students return home. As someone who currently goes to uni in Ottawa, you basically have to order Via tickets a good 4 weeks ahead of time just so there is space on the train because they sell out fast, and in turn you're likely going to use an alternative like Greyhound, which not only is it far more expensive, its also far less enjoyable than the train. Unfortunately, there is no way in hell VIA HFR is completed by the time I graduate, but if VIA HFR existed today, the impact it would have especially during reading week is insane.

Not only uni students, but a large segment of corporate travel is based on last minute bookings (many times same day bookings). Pre-Covid, I used to travel at least twice per month between Toronto and Montreal, and about 1/4 of my trips are made on VIA because

1) downtown to downtown proximity (I could easily leave downtown TO office at 4:10 and be in my seat by 4:30)
2) price - most corporate travelers aren't as price sensitive, but sometimes it still makes a huge cost/expense difference between VIA and say Porter or AC (which can easily run between $600-800 for a round trip flex ticket between YUL and YTZ).
3) comfort/ability to work - the somewhat longer train journey often compensates itself with the ability to get lots and lots of work done on the train (wifi, free booze in business, decently good hot meal)

I think HFR will make a real difference for the corporate traveler segment.

 

[crs1026]

There is nothing wrong with desiring it, but as I said, why obsess over it?

A Torontonian, an Ottawan, and a Montrealler go into a bar. (This is a scenario, not a bad joke.)

They sit at a table and discuss how they will keep in touch with each other, and with their friends. The Torontonian and the Ottawan agree that the train is great and they will use it often. The Ottawan and the Montrealler agree it works for them as well when they visit each other. But when the Torontonian and the Montrealler talk about visiting, they sigh and say, the train just doesn't cut it, it's just simper to drive. And fly now and then.

Then they all go home and tell their friends and family what they agree on. 800,000 Ottawans hear a good news story, but 2,600,000 Torontonians and 1,600,000 Montreallers hear a mixed message.

My point: If VIA cannot deliver a consistent value proposition across all customers between Windsor and Quebec City - the most populous and densely developed region of the country - then whatever attractive net income the Ottawa-Toronto segment produces will not change public behavior, especially around getting people out of their cars. Or with respect to public support for further investment towards true HSR.

Toronto-Ottawa is one sustainable segment, certainly... but it is not the prize. Enough people everywhere in Ontario and Quebec need to see a benefit gained in order to secure their support.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I think HFR will make a real difference for the corporate traveler segment.

I've been saying this all along. HFR cuts down the rail penalty on downtown to downtown travel to less than an hour on Toronto-Ottawa. The market for corporate travel to save 1 hr each way is entirely restricted to a segment of same day return travelers. I think Toronto-Ottawa all but gets reduced to feeder service for Pearson. Porter won't see growth in this market again.

At 4:45 for Toronto-Montreal though, I really have my doubts about getting much more corporate travel share. With Porter and REM, downtown to downtown is about 3 hrs by air. HFR reduces the rail penalty to 2 hrs (assuming 15 mins pre-boarding). That's substantial even for non-same day return. I think corporate travel will largely be price sensitive travelers like yourself, who don't want to pay last minute air fare. The closer they get to reducing that rail penalty to 1 hr (like Ottawa), the more they'll capture of the corporate travel market. Even cutting 30 mins would go a long way here. The added benefit also being they grow share in the Toronto-Ottawa market too.

 

[kEiThZ]

But when the Torontonian and the Montrealler talk about visiting, they sigh and say, the train just doesn't cut it, it's just simper to drive. And fly now and then.

This is an important point. When DJS said he wants to prioritize compete with driving, I believed him. But I fail to see how saving 1-1.5 hrs is substantial enough to convert lots of drivers. VIA is probably already winning over somebody driving alone. So at those trip times, it has to win over multiple-occupancy car travelers with competitive fares. And get the odd price-sensitive corporate traveler.

They'll get the bump in ridership from the improved schedule, massive increase in reliability and slight improvements in trip times. Toronto-Montreal will basically see the kind of ridership that Toronto-Ottawa sees today. That's a gain. But I don't see that as really transformative.

 

[crs1026]

Personally I think they should forego electrification and spend the $2B electrification would cost on a better corridor that cuts 10-20 mins from Ottawa-Montreal and 15-30 mins from Toronto-Ottawa.

Definitely. I am not an expert in aviation fuel consumption, but it seems that if one can replace two intermediate size 100-passenger airplanes with one 200-passenger diesel train, the carbon saved probably is braggable and sufficient to credibly contribute to national targets. While electrification is sexy green stuff, a carbon-producing diesel HFR is likely green enough, and that money can be better spent on better track..

An example of how that money might be used is the discussion we had earlier about a Sharbot Lake bypass. If one were to build the proposed bypass as a new line along Highway 7, it would replace about 23 miles of the old line with about 20-ish miles of new line. The curve argument says that that section, which is one of the curviest, would optimistically take 21 minutes to cross. But a new 20 mile section, capable of 100 mph, would be 12 minutes. That's a substantial time savings. Let's assume that the refurb cost of the old line is $5M per mile and the cost of a brand new line would be twice that. Is $100M additional to save 9 minutes a good deal? For investors running a barebones line, perhaps not. But as a slice of the electrification envelope, diverted to faster track, it might well be. I was skeptical about the merits of the Sharbot Lake opposition until I did the time comparison. A bypass might be money well spent, especially if (dreaming perhaps) there were provincial-federal cost sharing on a joint highway/rail corridor. Just one example.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

As per the Globe and Mail article, they budgeted $2.1B for Toronto-Ottawa. And $91.5M for Ottawa-Montreal. Electrification is supposed to be $2B. The way I look at it, if they spend that $2B to cut 10-15 mins from Ottawa-Montreal (making that commutable) and another 20-30 mins from Toronto-Ottawa, that would save more carbon from diverting air travelers and drivers than electrification would. Would probably generate more revenue and operational cost savings than fuel and maintenance cost savings from electrification.

I'm starting to think electrification has a better case when there's substantial traffic (20+ departures each way) or high speed rail. Doesn't seem to make sense for 15 trains a day, looking at the opportunity cost. If they are concerned about emissions in urban areas, just add battery packs.

 

[kEiThZ]

This whole discussion reminds me of the Ottawa LRT debates. They value engineered themselves out of a heavy rail system. But then built a virtual subway network with LRVs that has given them all kinds of issues. Spending that extra $100M and ruling out street-running entirely would have saved them a whole lot of headaches right now.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can understand the argument against HSR. What I can't understand is the resistance to marginal investment or at least studying them to make an informed decision. Don't want to build a $14B HSR line? I can understand that. But that shouldn't mean the only alternative is a $3B HFR line (TOM portion of the pie). Surely there should be some understanding of, "The sweet spot is at x. And every $y million we put in gets us z% closer to X."

I understand DJS' criticism of HSR. It is expensive. And less accessible to the middle class. But I'm not sure that building a roller coaster through the woods is necessarily the only alternative. I hope they publish their analysis. I'm eager to see if they considered trade off or nominal travel time targets at all. I would love to know what TM at 4.5 hrs, 4.25 hrs and 4 hrs would have cost to achieve.

Also, when they first announced the project it was Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal for $4B. Then they added Quebec City. The advertised price tag stayed near $4B. And the G&M article says $1.14B for MQ. Leaves me wondering if they cheaped out on TO to stay in the envelope. I wish they would just spend $4B and build TOM first and then spend $1.5B on the MQ phase later.

 

[roger1818]

Definitely. I am not an expert in aviation fuel consumption, but it seems that if one can replace two intermediate size 100-passenger airplanes with one 200-passenger diesel train, the carbon saved probably is braggable and sufficient to credibly contribute to national targets. While electrification is sexy green stuff, a carbon-producing diesel HFR is likely green enough, and that money can be better spent on better track..

I am not so sure. There are many reasons to promote rail travel in Canada, but I am not so sure how much it will move the needle on climate change (though I guess every bit helps).

First of all, the airlines won't give up that easily. The airlines might use smaller planes and slightly reduce the number of flights, but I wouldn't count on them abandoning the TOM routes.

Even if they did eliminate all of them, air travel between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal represents 15% of all domestic air trips in Canada (in 1997 according to this report). Given that (according to the David Suzuki Foundation) "Airline emissions make up a little more than three per cent of total emissions in Canada," the reduction Canada's GHG emissions would be about half of a percent (assuming seats on all flights have equal emissions, which they don't). Hardly braggable IMHO, but you do need to start somewhere.

There are many reasons to invest in rail, and I am not trying to argue against it, but it is important to have a realistic view of how much of an effect it will have on our total GHG emissions.

 

[crs1026]

First of all, the airlines won't give up that easily. The airlines might use smaller planes and slightly reduce the number of flights, but I wouldn't count on them abandoning the TOM routes.

If anything, I suspect that there is a backroom deal with Ottawa saying "OK, we will accept your building a rail line that competes Toronto-Ottawa, but we airlines get competitive advantage on Toronto-Montreal".

- Paul

 

[Sandpit]

Only in Canada, do we spend billions, ignore low-hanging fruit opportunities and claim that any more ambitious (reasonable in the rest of the world) objective is an obsession. The Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona corridor is of similar length ~600km, is anchored by similar population metro areas as Toronto and Montreal and yet, Spain built HSR that made the travel time 2h30min between Madrid-Barcelona. That's how you compete with flying and driving on this corridor. Even if there is a case for HFR, it's silly that in 2020, we think we should build the simplest and cheapest proposition that other countries have had since the 1950s (if not earlier) and ignore any serious attempt to actually win over mode share with HSR.

What's really frustrating is we don't have political economy frictions that other countries struggle to overcome. We've had majority federal government after majority federal government ignore railways. It's simply a lack of will (or ignorance?) that prevents HSR on this corridor. A minister that took one look at Spain (or elsewhere) could come back and literally demand/fund it in to existence. Instead we pretend that ministers are limited by the knowledge of technocrats who can't fathom building HSR.

The Catalan issue means that HSR in Spain is also a national unity project. So maybe if separatists gain ground in Quebec...

 

[robmausser]

If anything, I suspect that there is a backroom deal with Ottawa saying "OK, we will accept your building a rail line that competes Toronto-Ottawa, but we airlines get competitive advantage on Toronto-Montreal".

- Paul

What do you propose VIA do?

There is no alignment that VIA can own that goes directly between Toronto to Montreal that bypasses Ottawa. The current CN route is not on the table, nor will it ever be. They will not allow passenger priority and they especially wont allow electrification.

Any HSR would still use the Toronto > Ottawa > Montreal route and Toronto to Ottawa will always be faster because its closer.

The as-is HFR plan is still an improvement because even the fastest current VIA time from Toronto to Montreal of 4 hours and 50 minutes for the late train is a complete lie. Ive never once in the 20 trips Ive taken from Toronto to Montreal been on time. It averages 5.5h.

HFR will be a big improvement over this because it will be reasonably on time.

Also, 3 hours for flight time from downtown Toronto to Montreal is a pipe dream when you factor in security, etc etc. Maybe with REM but even still thats pushing it.

 

[crs1026]

What do you propose VIA do?

It's not VIA that needs to do something. It's Ottawa.

My serious belief is that CP and CN ought to be forced into co-production, freeing up one of three main lines between Toronto and Montreal. I would put CP on CN in one direction, and CN on CP in the other on the premise that this creates the greatest balance in interests/power between the two railroads, and is a template they are familiar with on lines south of Sudbury and west of Kamloops.

That leaves VIa with one of the two tracks on the CN mainline, plus the sections of triple track (which are admirably placed to enable meets on an hourly service). VIA can enhance speed on that track, add sidings, or add a third track.

There would have to be an expropriation discussion, but I'm confident the price would not come in different than HFR. Frankly, if CN and CP were each slipped a billion dollars' signing bonus, it would be a bargain. I don't believe they would argue all that hard if there were money on the table.

Ottawa can begin an investment fund, banking an amount every year against the day when the freight railways need more capacity - that won't happen for a couple decades, or longer. The coproduction zone west of Kamloops currently handles triple the volume of the Toronto-Montreal rail business, and over much harsher terrain. Say $20M per year, an amount that is affordable within the VIA envelope. Pass a law requiring long term zoning and land use such that a widened right of way can be created over decades.

It's pretty close to a fantasy scenario, and that's the whole point..... the public policy around rail passenger is so hands-off it's ridiculous.

I do sympathise with VIA trying to keep its head above water under a regime with a policy of "abandonment by neglect".

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

The Catalan issue means that HSR in Spain is also a national unity project. So maybe if separatists gain ground in Quebec...

The separatists are massively helped by the Montreal-Quebec segment that cuts travel time to just over 2 hrs. It's arguably the segment that benefits the most. Massive cut in travel times from 3:21 to 2:10. Competitive with driving and flying.

Meanwhile, bolstering ties between Toronto and Montreal....

 

[Darwinkgo]

Pass a law requiring long term zoning and land use such that a widened right of way can be created over decades.

Yeah, that isn't happening. There is legal precedent from Alberta that as soon as land is so designated, the land owners can force the government into expropriation proceedings. You can always expropriate later, and put in safety standards that make building too close to the corridor onerous (which is already happening).

That isn't even touching on federal-provincial jurisdictions about land use planning.